Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Sabrina]

Good summary, but this is the key point. In their view, those forms of contraception are immoral, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. The Catholic Church teaches that all medical contraception is immoral (even condoms IIUC). Perhaps a garrulous gaggle of gynecologists could convince HL to drop their objection to IUDs and Plan B, but no amount of science is ever going to convince observant Catholics that they should only object to the destruction of an implanted embryo, let alone a fertilized egg, and let alone sperm.

It's important to remember who is trying to disrupt the status quo here. The RFRA was passed to protect religious belief from future encroachments of the regulatory state. The beliefs were in place already, as well as the statute. And the administration wants to trump all that with a regulation promulgated by HHS. It probably could have done so, if contraception was something that only HL could have provided its employees. But the urgency was simply not sufficient in the Supreme Court's opinion to trump HL's religious beliefs. Seems like an eminently fair decision, especially in light of the fact that HHS has already decided to exempt the Catholic Church from its contraception mandate (and therefore the urgency of the mandate was hardly so great).

Good point, but you're forgetting something, I think, sunmaster14; namely that Hobby Lobby IS NOT a religious organization, while the Catholic Church IS. That is the reason they are granted a religious exemption from the contraception mandate; they are a duly recognized and registered religious organization an as such have the right to refuse to supply services that go against their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby is a corporation; founded and run by INDIVIDUALS who happen to hold strong religious beliefs, but who are not themselves considered a religious organization the way the Catholic Church is. It's for that reason that I DON'T think the Supreme Court decision was correct at all; I can understand that Hobby Lobby's owners/founders may hold their own personal religious beliefs, but unless and until Hobby Lobby is registered as a religious organization I don't think they should be allowed to deny their employees the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Then too, the fact that their beliefs appear to be trumping the science in this case (i.e. that drugs like Plan B or devices like IUDs cause abortions rather than preventing fertilization of the eggs, which is how they ACTUALLY work) is worrisome to me. Why is it their religious beliefs are allowed to trump the proven science in this case? And who is to say that this particular case will not be used as precedent for other religious exemptions that infringe upon an individual's right to choose what health services they want to use? Dessi already brought up in another thread that there are other groups that want religious exemptions to certain elements of the ACA and are using this decision as precedent to support their arguments; IANAL, but I find it difficult to believe that one type of exemption is allowed as okay while another is for some reason denied, even though they essentially amount to the same result (that being employees denied the health care benefits they want and in some cases need.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Good point, but you're forgetting something, I think, sunmaster14; namely that Hobby Lobby IS NOT a religious organization, while the Catholic Church IS. That is the reason they are granted a religious exemption from the contraception mandate; they are a duly recognized and registered religious organization an as such have the right to refuse to supply services that go against their religious beliefs.

No. This whole "duly recognized and registered religious organization" is a figment of your imagination. There is no such distinction or requirement for first amendment or for RFRA protections. In fact, I doubt there even can be without running into the establishment clause.

Hobby Lobby is a corporation

So is the Catholic Church in the United States. Actually, the Catholic Church in the United States is actually a whole bunch of corporations.

founded and run by INDIVIDUALS who happen to hold strong religious beliefs, but who are not themselves considered a religious organization the way the Catholic Church is.

That makes no difference. There is no legal basis for the distinction you are trying to make, and it's worth noting that the dissenting judges did not try to make your distinctions either.

It's for that reason that I DON'T think the Supreme Court decision was correct at all; I can understand that Hobby Lobby's owners/founders may hold their own personal religious beliefs, but unless and until Hobby Lobby is registered as a religious organization

And who, pray tell, do you imagine that you "register" as a religious organization with? Who gets to evaluate this registration, and what do you imagine that the consequences of such a registration are?

I use the word "imagine" because that's all you're doing: imagining things.

I don't think they should be allowed to deny their employees the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

Employees are free to do whatever they want to do with their bodies. Hobby Lobby's refusal to pay for it doesn't deprive them of that right.

Then too, the fact that their beliefs appear to be trumping the science in this case (i.e. that drugs like Plan B or devices like IUDs cause abortions rather than preventing fertilization of the eggs, which is how they ACTUALLY work) is worrisome to me. Why is it their religious beliefs are allowed to trump the proven science in this case?

Precisely because it's a religious belief. The point has never been (and can never be) whether or not that religious belief is factually correct. The moment you make the demand that religious beliefs be factually correct in order to be protected, you throw out the concept of religious freedom. If that's what you want to do, fine, but your problem then isn't with the court's decision, it's with the RFRA itself. Go complain to Congress, they passed the law, they can change it if they want to.

I suspect you will be disappointed in your efforts, though.

And who is to say that this particular case will not be used as precedent for other religious exemptions that infringe upon an individual's right to choose what health services they want to use?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay but that's only an issue because of the expectation that birth control be specifically part of the compensation package.

Look at it this way.

Employee: Boss I want some shoes.
Employer: Okay... errr go buy some shoes with your paycheck.
Employee: Nope, nope that's not good enough. I demand that you buy me shoes.
Employer: You want me to buy your shoes?
Employee: Well buy them for me. Or get some sort of shoe buying club for the office. Or I'll give you the money and you go buy them. The important thing is that you are involved in my shoe buying process somehow in some way.
Employer: Errr... okay I guess. What kind of shoes are you thinking of buying?
Employee: I don't know. Maybe some nice tasteful black pumps.
Employer: I don't know if I like black pumps.
Employee: Oh my god! How dare you encroach on my shoe buying rights! It's my fashion choices and my right! I guess you'd just rather I go shoeless you monster!
Employer: Errr okay. Shoes aren't that expensive. If you don't like the shoes I'd pick for you you can go buy your own.
Employee: No it's not the same! It's vitally important that I make you get involved in this process some how but not have a say in it!

Look employer tied health insurance is a separate issue. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so that makes this a bad analogy. It makes sense to have some standards for minimums for health insurance and that is what this is about.

And I know at my dad's old job the guys had a $75 a year credit for work boots.

So sure you and I want a real health care system but that is politically a dead issue. So we have to work with what we have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was asking you, not the Supreme Court.

What would be considered a false religion?

By this ruling one that takes issue with non contraceptive health care. That is why they mentioned vaccinations and blood transfusions as not being covered.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So Ziggurat why should people have to pay for their own, vaccines, blood transfusions and say non faith healing health care?

The supreme court seems fine with forcing your boss to pay for all kinds of immoral unethical things to many non Catholic religions. It only seems to carve Out exemptions for things the Catholic church doesn't like, even if it is more than is being asked for.

 

[Sabrina]

Religious organizations are required to register as such if they want tax-exempt status and access to the various "benefits" that come with such a status. That's the registration I was referring to, Ziggurat, and it is generally accepted (as far as I am aware) that the organizations that register for such status are the only organizations that receive any sort of religious exemptions for various things. Hobby Lobby is NOT one of those duly registered religious organizations, they are not a tax-exempt entity, and therefore I see no reason why they should be treated any differently from, say, my corporation (I work for Lockheed Martin).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Look employer tied health insurance is a separate issue. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so that makes this a bad analogy. It makes sense to have some standards for minimums for health insurance and that is what this is about.

No it's the same issue. You said it yourself "Employer tied." It can't be "Employed tied... except when I want them not to be."

So sure you and I want a real health care system but that is politically a dead issue. So we have to work with what we have.

But that's the whole point. You're not working with what you have. You're still trying to work with what you wish had. Right now you have a system where your employer is part of your health care purchasing.

What did people think was gonna happen when they drug right wing companies kicking and screaming into having to get involved in people's health care? That they weren't gonna try to make it as difficult as possible? That they were magically gonna be more reasonable about being part of the process then they were about joining the process in the first place?

I'm sorry but this is a textbook case of "What did you think was gonna happen?"

 

[Neally]

Yes! It is horrible when people who don't share those specific "religious beliefs" are treated differently under the law.

Any closely held employer that shares the beliefs that the owners of HL share, get treated the same under the law. If you're referring to the employees, there is no fundamental right for someone to buy something for someone else so being "treated differently" isn't applicable. Alternatively, they can find a different employer that will pay for the stuff they want.

 

[Ziggurat]

Religious organizations are required to register as such if they want tax-exempt status and access to the various "benefits" that come with such a status.

You have this wrong. Very, very wrong. First off, religious organizations register under the same IRS 501(c)(3) category that non-religious charities do. Second (and here I'll quote from the IRS) "Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS." And third, this preferential tax treatment is not a result of the 1st amendment, it is the result of tax law passed by Congress. 501(c)(3) registration is never mentioned anywhere in the RFRA. The RFRA stands apart from and independent of tax law. The two have essentially nothing to do with each other.

That's the registration I was referring to, Ziggurat, and it is generally accepted (as far as I am aware) that the organizations that register for such status are the only organizations that receive any sort of religious exemptions for various things.

I cannot attest to whether or not this is "generally accepted" (by whom? Not the IRS), but it's simply not true.

Hobby Lobby is NOT one of those duly registered religious organizations, they are not a tax-exempt entity, and therefore I see no reason why they should be treated any differently from, say, my corporation (I work for Lockheed Martin).

The court already gave a reason why: Lockheed Martin is not a closely held corporation. Its owners cannot be said to have any common religious beliefs in regards to its operations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No it's the same issue. You said it yourself "Employer tied." It can't be "Employed tied... except when I want them not to be."



But that's the whole point. You're not working with what you have. You're still trying to work with what you wish had. Right now you have a system where your employer is part of your health care purchasing.

What did people think was gonna happen when they drug right wing companies kicking and screaming into having to get involved in people's health care? That they weren't gonna try to make it as difficult as possible? That they were magically gonna be more reasonable about being part of the process then they were about joining the process in the first place?

I'm sorry but this is a textbook case of "What did you think was gonna happen?"

So you are against any standards for what insurance and employers can or can not do? They always had choices, offer what they want and pay the fine for not offering coverage that meets the standards of the affordable care act. They want special treatment. Why should they get special treatment?

 

[theprestige]

Good point, but you're forgetting something, I think, sunmaster14; namely that Hobby Lobby IS NOT a religious organization, while the Catholic Church IS.

sunmaster14 may have forgotten this, but I doubt it. I am certain that the Supreme Court didn't forget this, since they make it clear in the decision that their ruling is not based on the principle that HL is a religious organization. Rather--and the Court states this explicitly--the ruling is based on the principle that the owners of Hobby Lobby are human beings with human rights, and that their human rights are not a priori or comprehensively erased by incorporation.

That is the reason they are granted a religious exemption from the contraception mandate; they are a duly recognized and registered religious organization an as such have the right to refuse to supply services that go against their religious beliefs.

Can you cite the legal principle or court ruling that makes it clear that the "duly recognized and registered religious organization" status was the reason for granting the exception?

I've cited previously in this thread the passage from the Hobby Lobby decision where the Court makes it clear that their decision is based on the human rights of the individuals who own the company. I'd like to see the corresponding reasoning for your own claim about the legal status of the Catholic Church.

I understand that you imagine there exist certain kinds of legal entities with certain kinds of legal characteristics and certain kinds of legal behaviors. I think it would be helpful to the discussion if you could provide some evidence that the legalities of your imagination are congruent with the legalities that actually exist in statute and in precedent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So you are against any standards for what insurance and employers can or can not do?

Not exactly.

My only argument is, was, and always will be that when you bring other people into a process they get a say. If you want them have zero control over the process the only fair thing to do is give them zero responsbility in the process and people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

You trade freedom for security. It's amazing how many societal conflicts come from people demanding to have both.

You want the security of a guaranteed source of birth control for women. You also women to retain 100% control over their birth control choices. You can't do that. You have to pick one or the other.

Until everyone agrees with you on something you have to go at it alone (or with like minded people) or accept compromise to get what you want.

They always had choices, offer what they want and pay the fine for not offering coverage that meets the standards of the affordable care act. They want special treatment. Why should they get special treatment?

"I get a say in a process I was forced into" isn't special treatment. You can't tell someone they have to do something they don't want to do, then accept a compromise, then act as if there was no compromise.

Let's be very clear here. I'm not on their side, at least not in the way most people who are on their side are. I don't give a Hersey squirt about their so called religious rights or whatever other moral hangup they either have or are pretending to have. I'd be saying the same thing if the entire scope of Hobby Lobby's argument was "I just don't want to."

Yes they hypocritical. Yes they demonstratably lying about what they pretend to actually care about. Yes this has everything to do with some B.S. social / political posturing from the religious right and their continued just at this point baffling hang up with women's sexuality and pretty much nothing else. I'm contesting zero of that.

And none of that changes anything to me. If the CEO of Hobby Lobby said "I don't want to pay for my employee's contraceptives because of purple monkey dishwater my socks are made of noodles" I'd still say the same thing.

 

[wareyin]

Not exactly.

My only argument is, was, and always will be that when you bring other people into a process they get a say. If you want them have zero control over the process the only fair thing to do is give them zero responsbility in the process and people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

You trade freedom for security. It's amazing how many societal conflicts come from people demanding to have both.

You want the security of a guaranteed source of birth control for women. You also women to retain 100% control over their birth control choices. You can't do that. You have to pick one or the other.

Until everyone agrees with you on something you have to go at it alone (or with like minded people) or accept compromise to get what you want.



"I get a say in a process I was forced into" isn't special treatment. You can't tell someone they have to do something they don't want to do, then accept a compromise, then act as if there was no compromise.

Let's be very clear here. I'm not on their side, at least not in the way most people who are on their side are. I don't give a Hersey squirt about their so called religious rights or whatever other moral hangup they either have or are pretending to have. I'd be saying the same thing if the entire scope of Hobby Lobby's argument was "I just don't want to."

Yes they hypocritical. Yes they demonstratably lying about what they pretend to actually care about. Yes this has everything to do with some B.S. social / political posturing from the religious right and their continued just at this point baffling hang up with women's sexuality and pretty much nothing else. I'm contesting zero of that.

And none of that changes anything to me. If the CEO of Hobby Lobby said "I don't want to pay for my employee's contraceptives because of purple monkey dishwater my socks are made of noodles" I'd still say the same thing.

You seem to be forgetting that Hobby Lobby voluntarily provided health insurance prior to the ACA. In fact, they voluntarily provided health insurance that included some of the contraceptives that they suddenly don't want to pay for, now. They were not dragged or forced into this situation.

 

[MontagK505]

Any closely held employer that shares the beliefs that the owners of HL share, get treated the same under the law. If you're referring to the employees, there is no fundamental right for someone to buy something for someone else so being "treated differently" isn't applicable. Alternatively, they can find a different employer that will pay for the stuff they want.

If a "closely held" corporation want's to opt out of supporting contraception, they can do it only if it's based on religious ideology. They can't do it for any other reason. A doctor may refuse to prescribe specific contraception for a patient based on a medical judgement, but he can't refuse to pay for insurance for the same reason if he is the owner of a corporation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not exactly.

My only argument is, was, and always will be that when you bring other people into a process they get a say. If you want them have zero control over the process the only fair thing to do is give them zero responsbility in the process and people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

You trade freedom for security. It's amazing how many societal conflicts come from people demanding to have both.

You want the security of a guaranteed source of birth control for women. You also women to retain 100% control over their birth control choices. You can't do that. You have to pick one or the other.

Until everyone agrees with you on something you have to go at it alone (or with like minded people) or accept compromise to get what you want.



"I get a say in a process I was forced into" isn't special treatment. You can't tell someone they have to do something they don't want to do, then accept a compromise, then act as if there was no compromise.

Let's be very clear here. I'm not on their side, at least not in the way most people who are on their side are. I don't give a Hersey squirt about their so called religious rights or whatever other moral hangup they either have or are pretending to have. I'd be saying the same thing if the entire scope of Hobby Lobby's argument was "I just don't want to."

Yes they hypocritical. Yes they demonstratably lying about what they pretend to actually care about. Yes this has everything to do with some B.S. social / political posturing from the religious right and their continued just at this point baffling hang up with women's sexuality and pretty much nothing else. I'm contesting zero of that.

And none of that changes anything to me. If the CEO of Hobby Lobby said "I don't want to pay for my employee's contraceptives because of purple monkey dishwater my socks are made of noodles" I'd still say the same thing.

It is special treatment the are demanding, what else could you possibly call exemptions from parts of national regulation? What next companies getting a say in what constitutes minimum safety gear for a specific job?

The coal company who's mine blew up wasn't violating safety regulations just having their own say as to what safety means.

There are a lot of things people have no say in, why should this be any different? I know I know religious people especially Christians always demand special treatment as their right but why should they get it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You seem to be forgetting that Hobby Lobby voluntarily provided health insurance prior to the ACA.

Yes and now they want to voluntarily stop.

Again I'm not arguing that they aren't a bunch of hypocritical, inconsistant, obviously loaded down with ulterior motive twits.

I'm just saying that doesn't change anything in my book.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is special treatment the are demanding, what else could you possibly call exemptions from parts of national regulation?

I'm not gonna into deep Constutional Law here. I don't agree to religious exemptions to laws. I also don't agree with laws that force people to buy services for other people. It's your employer duty to provide you with fair compensation for the work you do. It's not their to buy you specific things. You do a job, they give you money which you then choose to spend however you want.

There's a reason the "Company Town" went away. Your employer can't pay you in "Hobby Lobby Dollars" that can only be redeemed at the Hobby Lobby Company Store like they could in the old days. This is like a return to that. Instead of nigh universally accepted money which I can spend on birth control or a snazzy hat depending on where my personal priorities lie now everyone gets paid in in money... plus all this other stuff that not everyone wants or needs.

This is a stupid wrong exemption to a stupid wrong law. And I'm a "Two wrongs don't make a right" sort of person.

Again I'm not the enemy here. I don't like where we've wound up anymore then you do. I just can't pretend we didn't wind up because I don't like and wish we would up somewhere else.

What next companies getting a say in what constitutes minimum safety gear for a specific job?

There's a big fundamental difference between basic safety regulations and "I demand my employeer provide me with this one specific item as part of my compensation."

There are a lot of things people have no say in, why should this be any different? I know I know religious people especially Christians always demand special treatment as their right but why should they get it?

They shouldn't. Hobby Lobby should not be able to get out of directly providing health care to employees because of religious beliefs. They should be able to get out of directly providing health care to employees because that's not really their responsibility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not gonna into deep Constutional Law here. I don't agree to religious exemptions to laws. I also don't agree with laws that force people to buy services for other people. It's your employer duty to provide you with fair compensation for the work you do. It's not their to buy you specific things. You do a job, they give you money which you then choose to spend however you want.

There's a reason the "Company Town" went away. Your employer can't pay you in "Hobby Lobby Dollars" that can only be redeemed at the Hobby Lobby Company Store like they could in the old days. This is like a return to that. Instead of nigh universally accepted money which I can spend on birth control or a snazzy hat depending on where my personal priorities lie now everyone gets paid in in money... plus all this other stuff that not everyone wants or needs.

This is a stupid wrong exemption to a stupid wrong law. And I'm a "Two wrongs don't make a right" sort of person.

Again I'm not the enemy here. I don't like where we've wound up anymore then you do. I just can't pretend we didn't wind up because I don't like and wish we would up somewhere else.



There's a big fundamental difference between basic safety regulations and "I demand my employeer provide me with this one specific item as part of my compensation."



They shouldn't. Hobby Lobby should not be able to get out of directly providing health care to employees because of religious beliefs. They should be able to get out of directly providing health care to employees because that's not really their responsibility.

So you support this exemption for any medical treatment that a religion takes issue with, or do you side with the court that it only applies to birth control?

Why or why not? And again this isn't a constitutional issue. This is between two federal laws. Stop bringing the constitution into this wrongly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So you support this exemption for any medical treatment that a religion takes issue with, or do you side with the court that it only applies to birth control?

Neither. I don't support any exemption period because I don't think there should be anything to be exempted from. I'm oppossed to the idea that it's an employer's responsibility to provide anything other then montary compensation.

It's not your employers jobs to buy specific things for you regardless of how necessary I think those things are.

They are things out there that are both more expensive and more necessary then birth control but we don't make employers buy, subsidize, track, or otehrwise get involved in that directly. People need places to live more then they need birth control and a place to live cost more then birth control, but we don't make Hobby Lobby get everyone a house or apartment as part of their compensation to make sure they all have one. And no one is claiming that Hobby Lobby is preventing you from living in a home via the fact that they aren't directly getting you one. Food is more essential and more expensive then birth control. But again Hobby Lobby just gives you money and just assumes your smart enough to pay the rent before you buy less essential stuff. They can't take away your right to food or housing anymore then they can take away your right to birth control.

I still can't fully grasp why birth control is suddenly special in this regard other then the obvious fact that is an ideological battle and has little to nothing to do with the actually making sure anyone gets anything specific thing.

The average American spends 26% of their take home pay on housing. The average American spends 151 dollars a week on food. I'd be shocked if those two numbers are way higher then what all but the most statistically outlying of cases spend on birth control.

Why isn't Hobby Lobby being viled for all the women they put out in streets by not having employer backed housing or all those poor women going hungry without employer backed food?

So why is this the battle? Why is this the line in the sand? Why does an employer have to get involved in one but not the other if it's not all ideological posturing between two old foes?

 

[Neally]

If a "closely held" corporation want's to opt out of supporting contraception, they can do it only if it's based on religious ideology. They can't do it for any other reason.

Yep. The laws are full of differences in how organizations are taxed and regulated. Some of that has to do with religious beliefs. This is nothing new or extraordinary. This ruling is consistent with previous decisions, laws and the constitution. No one's rights were harmed by this decision and it supports the religious rights and beliefs of the owners.